hi Lew,
the only person who has experience with this question at this time that i know of is Steve Dobbins who is the one who built the plinth for my Mk2 and is presently building the plinth for the Mk3. i shipped him my Mk3 a few weeks ago. it will likely be a couple of months before it returns. he does take the Mk3 plinth to another level of refinement by separating the platter and motor from the case-work. so you just see the platter sticking up from the plinth. Steve feels that with the additional torque of the Mk3 motor shedding the case-work improves noise control. all that torque causes that case to flex and directly attaching the motor to the plinth eliminates that issue. i'm taking Steve's word for that. this change in plinth design makes it less than a direct comparison to my Mk2 for me later. Steve came to this design conclusion based on trying the Mk3 both ways.
with analog; everything matters. and at the top of the food chain; it all matters alot.
i know that Albert is nearing completion of his Mk3 plinth and might be listening now. it will likely take him a little time to get the Mk3 dialed in. then i'm sure he'll be sharing his results. btw; Albert's plinth design will not separate the platter from the case-work. i think i agree with Albert's opinion that the 'look' is better with the case-work attached.
the Mk2 sounds wonderful; i have not actually heard a Mk3 so i have no sense of the differences.
i do know with my experiences with the Rockport, the Mk2 and the Garrard that any time you lower noise and improve speed solidity and speed accuracy the music is more alive and involving. i expect that those will be the areas where the Mk3 shows it's worth.
added note; when i started to write this post Albert had not yet posted his above comments.....
the only person who has experience with this question at this time that i know of is Steve Dobbins who is the one who built the plinth for my Mk2 and is presently building the plinth for the Mk3. i shipped him my Mk3 a few weeks ago. it will likely be a couple of months before it returns. he does take the Mk3 plinth to another level of refinement by separating the platter and motor from the case-work. so you just see the platter sticking up from the plinth. Steve feels that with the additional torque of the Mk3 motor shedding the case-work improves noise control. all that torque causes that case to flex and directly attaching the motor to the plinth eliminates that issue. i'm taking Steve's word for that. this change in plinth design makes it less than a direct comparison to my Mk2 for me later. Steve came to this design conclusion based on trying the Mk3 both ways.
with analog; everything matters. and at the top of the food chain; it all matters alot.
i know that Albert is nearing completion of his Mk3 plinth and might be listening now. it will likely take him a little time to get the Mk3 dialed in. then i'm sure he'll be sharing his results. btw; Albert's plinth design will not separate the platter from the case-work. i think i agree with Albert's opinion that the 'look' is better with the case-work attached.
the Mk2 sounds wonderful; i have not actually heard a Mk3 so i have no sense of the differences.
i do know with my experiences with the Rockport, the Mk2 and the Garrard that any time you lower noise and improve speed solidity and speed accuracy the music is more alive and involving. i expect that those will be the areas where the Mk3 shows it's worth.
added note; when i started to write this post Albert had not yet posted his above comments.....